<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Speaking of Technology &#8230;	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://gregladen.com/blog/2008/02/01/speaking-of-technology-1/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2008/02/01/speaking-of-technology-1/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Feb 2008 08:21:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.6</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Greg Laden		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2008/02/01/speaking-of-technology-1/#comment-3430</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Greg Laden]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Feb 2008 08:21:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/02/01/speaking-of-technology-1/#comment-3430</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Andrew: What you are saying is pretty much what I had been hearing.At some point, backwards compatibility = bloat.  I&#039;m not sure if you can afford bloat if you are a) a scripting language that is used as though it was a compiled language (in many applications and b) not microsoft.I&#039;m looking forward to 3.  I have very little invested in pre-3, and I&#039;m a complete dilettante when it comes to programming.  To me, breaking the language means making it lose it&#039;s charm and utility.I don&#039;t think there is a problem with keeping 2.6 (say) installed along side 3.0.  It just makes the name of the language longer, and people should be used to that already (invoking Python2.4 vs Python2.6)Anyway, it is interesting, and I&#039;m writing a post about it.G]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Andrew: What you are saying is pretty much what I had been hearing.At some point, backwards compatibility = bloat.  I&#8217;m not sure if you can afford bloat if you are a) a scripting language that is used as though it was a compiled language (in many applications and b) not microsoft.I&#8217;m looking forward to 3.  I have very little invested in pre-3, and I&#8217;m a complete dilettante when it comes to programming.  To me, breaking the language means making it lose it&#8217;s charm and utility.I don&#8217;t think there is a problem with keeping 2.6 (say) installed along side 3.0.  It just makes the name of the language longer, and people should be used to that already (invoking Python2.4 vs Python2.6)Anyway, it is interesting, and I&#8217;m writing a post about it.G</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Andrew Watts		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2008/02/01/speaking-of-technology-1/#comment-3429</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew Watts]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:43:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/02/01/speaking-of-technology-1/#comment-3429</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The Python 3.0 thing is basically a non-event. Back when Python 2.0 came out Guido announced plans for Python 3000, which most likely would break some backwards compatibility. Two years ago they started developing 3.0 at the same time as 2.5, with 2.6 planned as a transitional version. 3.0a2 is already out if you want to test, as is a 2to3 script that identifies code that needs to be changed and can automatically convert much of it. Plus most of the new features are already supported as an option in 2.6 (and even some in 2.5) either by default or with the use of __future__.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Python 3.0 thing is basically a non-event. Back when Python 2.0 came out Guido announced plans for Python 3000, which most likely would break some backwards compatibility. Two years ago they started developing 3.0 at the same time as 2.5, with 2.6 planned as a transitional version. 3.0a2 is already out if you want to test, as is a 2to3 script that identifies code that needs to be changed and can automatically convert much of it. Plus most of the new features are already supported as an option in 2.6 (and even some in 2.5) either by default or with the use of __future__.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Greg Laden		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2008/02/01/speaking-of-technology-1/#comment-3428</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Greg Laden]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:43:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/02/01/speaking-of-technology-1/#comment-3428</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Virgil:  What are you talking about?  Please elaborate.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Virgil:  What are you talking about?  Please elaborate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Virgil Samms		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2008/02/01/speaking-of-technology-1/#comment-3427</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Virgil Samms]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:11:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/02/01/speaking-of-technology-1/#comment-3427</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;a href=&quot;http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39292561,00.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Python 3.0 will break many things&lt;/a&gt;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39292561,00.htm" rel="nofollow">Python 3.0 will break many things</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
